Dear Editor:Xavier Augustin's article purports to lament the development of the consulting companies which are disproportionately large users of H-1B visas. The arguments raised by Mr. Augustin are entirely irrelevant. He laments the conduct of what he terms "Indian consulting companies", but he never bothers to define this term. But what makes this criticism particularly amusing is that he is the president/CEO of an "Indian consulting company". The suggestions he does offer are largely ineffective. For example, he suggests that the quota be raised to 200,000 visas per year. This would certainly mitigate the harm caused by the present quota, but as his article makes clear, quotas are artificial limits which harm the economy and should be abolished. He suggests that there be minimum criteria for visas sponsorship, and regulation of the sponsors. These criteria already exist in the law, and the DOL pursues investigations of substantiated complaints concerning H-1B violations. The obvious implications of Mr. Augustin's complaints about the existing system should lead to the conclusion that the quotas be abolished, and that labor market decide how many employees are required in the domestic workforce. But what he fails to grasp is that there is a substantial mismatch between the available and required skills. American employers which need individuals with particular skills would not irrationally refuse to hire domestic workers ready willing and able to perform required services. Demand for foreign workers and the advent of the consulting company are the reaction of the marketplace. Analyzing the underlying economic rationale behind the existing system is a prerequisite to advocating rational reforms to change. Unfortunately, Mr. Augustin fails to offer a sensible analysis of the existing visa process and labor market for IT professionals and the function of consulting companies in serving this market.